CEOs of Microsoft, Adobe, IBM, Cognizant and 200-plus US companies 'raise alarm,' sign petition saying: US is falling behind, we must prepare our children to…
Over 250 CEOs and technology leaders, including
Microsoft
's
Satya Nadella
, Adobe's Shantanu Narayen,
IBM's Arvind Krishna
, and Cognizant's Ravi Kumar S, have signed an open letter warning that the United States is falling behind globally in preparing students for an AI-driven future. The coalition also includes prominent leaders from Airbnb, Uber, LinkedIn, and Salesforce, all calling for computer science and AI to become mandatory components of
K-12 education
nationwide.
"In the age of AI, we must prepare our children for the future — to be AI creators, not just consumers," the letter states, pointing out that countries like Brazil, China, South Korea, and Singapore have already made computer science or AI mandatory for every student.
Other prominent signatories include Marc Benioff (Salesforce),
Michael Dell
, CEO and founder of Dell, LinkedIn founder
Reid Hoffman
, and former Microsoft CEO
Steve Ballmer
.
Just one CS course could boost wages by 8% for all students, says CEOs
The campaign highlights research showing that just one high school computer science course can boost wages by 8% for all students, regardless of their eventual career path. Advocates argue that making these subjects required rather than elective could unlock $660 billion in
economic potential
annually and help close persistent skills and income gaps.
Currently, only 12 states require students to learn even basic computer science. While all 50 states have taken steps to expand computer science education in the past decade, the letter's signatories argue this progress is insufficient given the rapid advancement of AI technologies across all industries.
The bipartisan-supported initiative, spearheaded by organizations like Code.org and CSforALL, emphasizes that computer science education is not just about creating more tech workers, but about ensuring all American students have the foundation they need to thrive in an increasingly technology-driven world economy.
"This is not just an educational issue; it's about closing skills and income gaps that have persisted for generations," the letter continues, urging policymakers, educators, and communities to join the effort to make computer science and
AI education
accessible to every student.
Read the complete open letter from CEOs
'WHAT IF A SINGLE CLASS COULD HELP CLOSE WAGE GAPS, UNLOCK $660 BILLION IN ECONOMIC POTENTIAL EVERY YEAR FOR EVERYDAY AMERICANS, AND ADDRESS THE SKILLS GAP WE CURRENTLY FACE?
This is possible, today — if we include computer science and AI as a core part of every student's education.
Just one high school computer science course boosts wages by 8% for all students, regardless of career path or whether they attend college.
Yet, most students never even try computer science, because it's not a graduation requirement. Only 12 states require students to learn even basic computer science.
This is not just an educational issue; it's about closing skills and income gaps that have persisted for generations.
It's also about keeping America competitive. Countries like Brazil, China, S. Korea, and Singapore have already made computer science or AI mandatory for every student. The United States is falling behind.
In the age of AI, we must prepare our children for the future — to be AI creators, not just consumers. A basic foundation in computer science and AI is crucial for helping every student thrive in a technology-driven world. Without it, they risk falling behind.
How can we accept this? We have a responsibility to prepare the next generation for the new American Dream. We owe it to them to provide an education that reflects the demands of our time.
Change is already underway. This movement has bipartisan support from leaders on both sides of the aisle. In the past 10 years, all 50 states have taken steps forward, and 100,000 teachers have started teaching computer science.
But we can't stop here. We must make computer science and AI a required part of every school's curriculum. Together, we can unlock $660 billion in opportunity for everyday Americans, close wage gaps and ensure our children are prepared for the challenges and opportunities of tomorrow.'
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Donald Trump is battling America's elite universities—and winning
Editor's note: On April 14th the Trump administration froze $2.2bn of federal funds for Harvard University after the Ivy League college became the first institution to reject policy changes it had demanded. This was not a hidden plot, but an open plan. In the eyes of the right, America's elite universities are guilty of a litany of sins: they propagate illiberal, left-wing ideas; they exclude or censor those who question woke views; they discriminate against the majority in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI); they allow antisemitism to fester. Before Donald Trump's second term as president began, conservative activists had laid out in considerable detail the retribution they were preparing to exact for these misdeeds. The retribution is now under way. Mr Trump's administration has withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants from prestigious schools, mostly in the Ivy League, and threatened to yank billions more. It has rescinded visas for students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year, in some cases by having plainclothes officers grab them on the street and push them into unmarked cars. It has capped overhead costs for scientific research in ways that have already led to thousands of lost jobs. Other levers, over access to federal student loans, for instance, have not even been pulled yet. Every university president in America dreads the arrival of 'the letter' from the administration. The first was sent to Columbia University on March 13th, shortly after $400m of grants were withheld. To win the money back, the letter demanded that Columbia expel certain students who participated in protests, reform its admissions policies and place its Middle Eastern studies department into 'academic receivership'. The university capitulated to all the demands. Its president, herself a stand-in, resigned a week later. 'The Columbia opening salvo was incredible to me,' says Chris Rufo, a prominent culture warrior. 'It's almost unbelievable how weak, feckless, and pathetic these folks have been.' More shakedowns have followed. On March 19th Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, wrote in the Atlantic that the Trump administration's actions presented 'the greatest threat to the American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s'. That may be an understatement: Joseph McCarthy, who hounded suspected communists, was a mere senator, without the weight of the federal government behind him. In late March the federal government informed Princeton that it was suspending research grants worth $210m, ostensibly because of antisemitism. On April 3rd a letter from the government arrived at Harvard threatening $9bn-worth of grants unless the university scrapped its DEI programmes and reformed 'departments that fuel antisemitic harassment'. This week $1bn in funding for Cornell and $790m for Northwestern was frozen. Disdain for elite universities is not new to the American right. Ronald Reagan won the governorship of California in 1966 by pledging 'to clean up the mess at Berkeley' and clear out the 'beatniks, radicals and filthy speech advocates' who had 'brought such shame' to the flagship state university. But the long-running antagonism has gradually intensified as education has become more of a dividing line in American politics, with university graduates tending ever more strongly to vote Democratic. In the 1970s there were fewer than two academics who described themselves as liberal for every conservative. Four decades later the ratio was six to one. Humanities faculties, in particular, have championed ideas unpopular with ordinary voters: that American society is structurally racist, for example, or that everyone has a 'gender identity' unrelated to their sex. Trust in universities has dropped precipitously over the past decade. In 2015 nearly 60% of respondents told Gallup, a pollster, that they had a great deal of confidence in higher education. That has since fallen to 36%, almost the same proportion as say they have 'very little' or 'no confidence'. Republicans are especially critical; only 20% of them express faith in universities, compared with 56% of Democrats. 'The isolation of the academy writ large, from the whole of society, is at the root of a lot of these problems,' says Greg Weiner, the president of Assumption University. Loud and lengthy protests against Israel's war in Gaza over the past 18 months have further cemented the idea that campuses are out of kilter with mainstream opinion—and given the right an opportunity to attack universities for not doing enough to make Jewish students and faculty feel safe. The administration has been using supposed antisemitism as grounds to demand reforms. 'In some cases, these are not just unconstitutional demands, but there is also no statutory authority for them,' says Jameel Jaffer, a professor of law and journalism at Columbia University. Mr Jaffer points out that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which the administration has invoked on behalf of Jewish students and faculty, does allow for sanctions—but only after a formal investigation. Even then, 'The remedial measures have to be limited to the programme found to be in violation.' The withdrawal of grants could also be challenged. Universities might argue that the conditions the administration is imposing for their restoration amount to unconstitutional coercion. In 1967 in Keyishian v Board of Regents, the Supreme Court found that academic freedom is 'a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom'. The deportation of foreign students involved in protests is of dubious legality, too. In Bridges v Wixon in 1945 the Supreme Court affirmed, 'Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.' The Trump administration has explicitly rejected this idea. In its deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia involved in protests against the war in Gaza, the administration is citing a seldom-used law allowing the secretary of state to cancel visas for migrants whose continued presence could yield 'potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences'. The Supreme Court has never opined on this law, but in 1996 in Massieu v Reno, a federal district judge struck it down as unconstitutional. As it happened, the judge in question was Maryanne Trump Barry, the late sister of Mr Trump. It seems unlikely that even the Supreme Court, with its conservative supermajority, would endorse all the Trump administration's attacks on universities, if asked. Yet most of the victims seem more inclined to capitulate than litigate. That may be because universities are worried that even if they prevail in one instance, the administration will simply find other ways to punish and coerce them. Moreover, judicial relief comes only slowly; there would be lots of financial difficulties during the delay. Talented faculty might decamp to other institutions with fewer government headaches. By the same token, although many of the universities affected are enormously wealthy (see chart), the federal government can impose costs in so many ways that most see no hope of simply enduring the financial pressure. Instead, universities, whether recipients of letters or not, are disavowing the policies the right so dislikes, academic freedom notwithstanding. The University of Michigan has shuttered its DEI office, on which it had lavished $250m over the past decade. The University of California, which pioneered the requirement that prospective hires provide 'diversity statements' (in effect, professions of support for DEI), recently dropped them. 'This is the Vichy moment. It's a classic collaborationist dilemma,' says Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, an as-yet-untargeted institution. 'You can have preserved your school but you live in a sea of authoritarianism.' Bringing universities to heel from 'a position of savage strength', as Mr Rufo puts it, may yield only superficial results. Because Mr Trump's approach is so hostile and extreme, it may actually discourage universities from honestly assessing how they went wrong and correcting course. 'None of this will make any difference in the long run unless it is accompanied by a full accounting of what has happened for the last two decades in higher education in America,' says Anthony Kronman, a former dean of Yale Law School. There is also little logic in the government's decision to switch off funding for science in order to punish ideas that emanated from humanities departments. Another recent decision, to cap the share of research grants that can be spent on overheads, will diminish the amount of scientific research conducted at all American universities, not just the elite ones. So will the gutting of the National Institutes of Health, which dispense huge amounts of funding for medical research. The administration's general antipathy towards immigrants will presumably also take a toll. 'Our universities are the best in the world. We drain the world of human capital. It's the goose that lays the golden egg,' says Nicholas Christakis, a professor at Yale. Mr Rufo is undaunted. He hints that the campaign against woke academics is only in its infancy. Certainly, more universities will come under attack and more means of coercion will be tested. There is talk in conservative circles of demanding the sacking of particular professors. Mr Rufo gives short shrift to talk about the sanctity of academic freedom. 'Freedom is the wrong lens to analyse the problem,' he says. 'The Columbia post-colonial studies faculty are not engaged in academic research. They're engaged in political activism. They're engaged in ideological mania. And in order to have academic freedom, you have to accept academic responsibility.' But even accepting the remedies Mr Trump is dispensing does not seem to have been enough in Columbia's case, at least. Although it has complied with the administration's demands, it still has not received the $400m that had been frozen. Correction (April 11th 2025): A previous version of this piece said that Eugene McCarthy was the senator who pursued suspected communists in the 1950s. In fact it was Joseph McCarthy. Sorry.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
The six best films about financial turmoil
Finance is not an obvious subject for dramatists. Interest rates, term sheets, mark-to-market accounting: these are phrases to make the average viewer's eyes glaze over. But when markets plunge—dragging down Main Street along with Wall Street—screenwriters' interest surges. Perhaps viewers can expect some terrific films about the tariff-induced chaos in years to come. Until then, here are the best films made about financial turmoil. The financial crisis of 2007-09 was decidedly serious, but this film—about a group of outsiders and hustlers who bet on the housing bubble bursting, and hence foresaw the crisis—is very funny. (It is adapted from a book of the same name by Michael Lewis.) Various celebrities make cameos to explain financial concepts directly to viewers, while Steve Carell, Christian Bale (pictured below) and a frighteningly tanned and venal Ryan Gosling play three of the men who profit from the crisis. This film is morally complex and gripping; it informs and outrages. This documentary is about financiers who ended up in prison because they thought they were cleverer than everyone else. Greedy and hubristic, Enron's executives used dodgy accounting and aggressive PR tactics to make their energy-trading firm seem more profitable than it was. Investors lost billions and the top executives were convicted of fraud, though the boss, Kenneth Lay, died shortly before his sentencing. Based on an equally enjoyable book by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind. The Joad family, kicked off their land in Oklahoma during the Great Depression, head west to California to make a better life. The story could easily have been leaden, but Henry Fonda's spiky lead performance as Tom Joad, and the extraordinary cinematography of Gregg Toland (who also filmed 'Citizen Kane'), make it a work of art. John Steinbeck's novel is an American masterpiece; this film is better. A young analyst at an investment bank finds out that the firm is overexposed to risky mortgage-backed securities. This film (pictured below), set in 2008, focuses on the next 24 hours, as the firm sells everything and panic spreads across Wall Street. The ensemble cast is terrific, in particular Paul Bettany as a shark with a well-hidden heart of gold. But watch it for its portrayal of the rituals and culture of high finance: how people dress and defer to superiors, what they talk about outside the office and how they cut each other's throats. Another film about the crisis of 2007-09, this time about the headliners. After the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Hank Paulson, America's treasury secretary (William Hurt), Ben Bernanke, the chair of the Federal Reserve (Paul Giamatti), and the leaders of the biggest banks gather. They negotiate the Troubled Asset Relief Programme, the government's purchase of bad assets from banks to unfreeze credit. The script is instructive—characters explain things to each other for the viewer's benefit—so you'll finish the film having learned something as well as having been entertained. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jordan Belfort, a smooth-talking huckster who, in real life, made millions in penny-stock scams before going to prison. Martin Scorsese may have intended to make a morality tale about the dangers of filthy lucre, but Belfort and his buddies are clearly having more fun than the honest lawmen who eventually do them in. Jonah Hill offers a grotesque supporting performance aided by a gargantuan set of false teeth.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
UN nuclear watchdog board censures Iran, Tehran reacts with announcement of new enrichment site
The UN nuclear watchdog's board of governors on Thursday formally found that Iran isn't complying with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years, a move that could lead to further tensions and set in motion an effort to restore United Nations sanctions on Tehran later this year. Iran reacted immediately, saying it will establish a new enrichment facility 'in a secure location' and that 'other measures are also being planned.' 'The Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to respond to this political resolution,' the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said in a joint statement. US President Donald Trump previously warned that Israel or America could carry out airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations failed — and some American personnel and their families have begun leaving the region over the tensions, which come ahead of a new round of Iran-US talks Sunday in Oman. In Israel, the US Embassy ordered American government employees and their families to remain in the Tel Aviv area over security concerns. Nineteen countries on the International Atomic Energy Agency's board, which represents the agency's member nations, voted for the resolution, according to diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the outcome of the closed-doors vote. Russia, China and Burkina Faso opposed it, 11 abstained and two did not vote. In the draft resolution seen by The Associated Press, the board of governors renews a call on Iran to provide answers 'without delay' in a long-running investigation into uranium traces found at several locations that Tehran has failed to declare as nuclear sites. Western officials suspect that the uranium traces could provide further evidence that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program until resolution was put forward by France, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States. Speaking to Iranian state television after the vote, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said that his agency immediately informed the IAEA of 'specific and effective' actions Tehran would take. 'One is the launch of a third secure site' for enrichment, spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said. He did not elaborate on the location, but the organization's chief Mohammad Eslami later described the site as 'already built, prepared, and located in a secure and invulnerable place.' Iran has two underground sites at Fordo and Natanz and has been building tunnels in the mountains near Natanz since suspected Israeli sabotage attacks targeted that facility. The other step would be replacing old centrifuges for advanced ones at Fordo. 'The implication of this is that our production of enriched materials will significantly increase,' Kamalvandi said. According to the draft resolution, 'Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran … constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement.' Under those obligations, which are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is legally bound to declare all nuclear material and activities and allow IAEA inspectors to verify that none of it is being diverted from peaceful uses. The draft resolution also finds that the IAEA's 'inability … to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful gives rise to questions that are within the competence of the United Nations Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.' The draft resolution made a direct reference to the US-Iran talks, stressing its 'support for a diplomatic solution to the problems posed by the Iranian nuclear program, including the talks between the United States and Iran, leading to an agreement that addresses all international concerns related to Iran's nuclear activities, encouraging all parties to constructively engage in diplomacy.' A senior Western diplomat last week described the resolution as a 'serious step,' but added that Western nations are 'not closing the door to diplomacy on this issue.' However, if Iran fails to cooperate, an extraordinary IAEA board meeting will likely be held in the summer, during which another resolution could get passed that will refer the issue to the Security Council, the diplomat said on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue with the media. The three European nations have repeatedly threatened in the past to reinstate, or 'snapback,' sanctions that have been lifted under the original 2015 Iran nuclear deal if Iran does not provide 'technically credible' answers to the U.N. nuclear watchdog's questions. In a joint statement to the IAEA board of governors, the three European nations said that they would 'spare no efforts to work towards a diplomatic solution' but added that without a satisfying deal, they would 'consider triggering the snapback mechanism to address threats to international peace and security arising from Iran's nuclear program.' The authority to reestablish those sanctions by the complaint of any member of the original 2015 nuclear deal expires in October, putting the West on a clock to exert pressure on Tehran over its program before losing that power. The resolution comes on heels of the IAEA's so-called 'comprehensive report' that was circulated among member states last weekend. In the report, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said that Iran's cooperation with the agency has 'been less than satisfactory' when it comes to uranium traces discovered by agency inspectors at several locations in Iran. One of the sites became known publicly in 2018, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed it at the United Nations and called it a clandestine nuclear warehouse hidden at a rug-cleaning plant. Iran denied this, but in 2019, IAEA inspectors detected the presence of uranium traces there as well as at two other sites. Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian, who campaigned on reaching out to the West, struck a harder line after the IAEA vote. 'I don't know how to cooperate with the outside world to stop them from doing evil acts and let the people live independently in this country,' Pezeshkian said. 'We will continue down our own path; we will have enrichment.'
